I had assumed that the #DisruptTexts movement was organic. But I recently discovered https://t.co/55JVkOeyO7, and I think that, in addition to publishers springing into action to meet market demand, they may possibly be playing a role in fostering abandonment of classics. 1/

From @jack:

Starting now, we are changing the way we do things at Twitter. Even though we have been following policies we created, that we thought were good and necessary, it just hasn’t had the desired effect of promoting good discourse. Effective immediately, we are changing.

The basic principle that now guides us is that instead of trying to manipulate discourse, we are opening it up, and making ourselves more transparent and accountable, and resisting attempts at censorship of us or our users.

Further, we have been fundamentally operating under the false premise that we, our our news and fact-checking partners, are smarter or better at understanding information than you, our users, are. This is a vain fiction, and we will drop this pretense.

We have long known that we are not just another social media site, but the place where citizens, governments, and organizations communicate with each other, for essential purposes. We have a great responsibility to the public to be open. So, we change to improve.

First: we will no longer proactively delete any content, except for: private information harming a person other than who posted it (e.g. doxxing, revenge porn, etc.), and any content we are legally required to remove.

After the 9/11 attacks, airlines and public buildings adopted a flurry of "security" measures, like taking away pen-knives from fliers or requiring visitors to office buildings to be photographed or present a driver's license.

1/

Bruce Schneier's seminal 2003 "Beyond Fear" called these measures: #securitytheater.

Schneier pointed out that these measures would be easy to circumvent, and were thus providing only the comforting appearance of security - not security

Security theater is worse than nothing. Security theater gives people the false impression that their risks have been mitigated, when actually things are just as dangerous.

After al, if you know that danger exists, you can take some steps to mitigate or avoid it.

3/

But if you have the false impression that you've been made safer, you might unwittingly engage in risky behavior.

4/

Like, if you know your car's brakes are flaky, you might nurse the car along to the mechanic at low speed on side-streets.

But if you don't know about the brakes, you're apt to discover their flaws at 75mph on the freeway.

5/

Thread: One of the things demons and fallen spirit beings want to do is replicate their torment in your marriage and family. Part of that strategy is to encourage us to treat each other with the same savagery they treat each other, since they have no capacity for love or...

compassion, even for their fellow fallen spirit beings. Even when a demon helps another demon it is only in self interest, never loyalty or love. This is what they hope to do in your family and marriage. Marriage is the foundation of culture. If you can destroy marriage, you can

destroy culture. If they can destroy the relationship between husband and wife, they can destroy the spiritual formation of the children. Demons are keenly aware of the social structure put in place by God and where to launch their attacks against it.

Marriage is properly defined as a solemn contract in which a man and a woman confer bodily rights, among other things, for the sake of procreation. This is strictly a formal theological definition of marriage. Marriage is solemn because it is formalized in public, and witnessed..

by a minister of the church. It is a contract because there is a conferral of bodily and other rights. Now some might ask, isn't marriage a covenant? Yes and no, depending on how you define the word. If we define a covenant as a solemn contract, then yes. In any valid contract,..